After the death of Frederick
the Great in 1786, the Royal Porcelain Factory (Königlichen
Porzellan-Manufaktur, or KPM) experienced a new beginning, and developments
that began then only reached fruition in the nineteenth century. Unlike the
Imperial Porcelain Factory in Vienna, where operations ran smoothly in the
hands of one outstanding entrepreneur, Sörgel von Sorgenthal, the
responsibility for directing the factory in Berlin had been entrusted to a
bureaucratic, collegial, administrative authority, the Royal Porcelain Factory
Commission, under the chairmanship of minister Friedrich Anton Baron von
Heinitz (1725-1802). During this period, the factory pioneered crucial technical
innovations that overshadowed the artistic achievements. In 1797, KPM was the
first German factory successfully to introduce the round-shelved kiln that
saved money, energy, and time. As one of the first industrial enterprises on
the continent, KPM had at its disposal (in 1793, after eleven years of effort),
a ten horse-power steam engine that replaced the horses used to power the
glazing mills, stamping and grinding shops, and water pumps.1

As spectacular and
influential as these improvements were, the development of new colors and
gold-working techniques, which above all were meant to compete with Vienna,
lagged behind that leading factory, which had a highly skilled artistic staff
at its disposal. Apart from a few outstanding examples of figural work and many
excellent floral decorations, the results at Berlin were inferior compared to
work at the Imperial Porcelain Factory at Vienna (Wiener Porzellan-Manufaktur)
that was leading Europe at that time.

The same was also true for
landscape painting on porcelain, a section led until 1789 in Berlin by Carl
Wilhelm Böhme (1720-89), who had left Meissen in 1763 to join Gotzkowsky in
Berlin. To be sure, he had also created independent etchings between 1744 and
1766, but among the nineteen sheets known to us today, there is only one view
substantiating the belief that his field was the veduta ideale, the fantasy landscape.2

Nevertheless, the Royal
Porcelain Manufactory Commission was interested in the subject of view
painting. In 1787, Count von Reden,3 one of the members of the factory’s
commission, had given instructions to send landscape artist Friedrich Wilhelm
Schaub “to the Silesian and Glatzer mountain regions … to copy
faithfully the beautiful nature.” Afterwards he was supposed to place his
drawings and paintings at the disposal of the KPM, so that the bundtmalerei (department of color
paintings) could make good use of the work. For this effort Schaub was paid
from KPM’s special budget for models, drawings, and prints. Despite the
commission’s early stimulus in producing authentic views which, as we know,
remained unexecuted,4 there was no realistic view painting made on KPM
porcelain worth mentioning until the end of the eighteenth century.5 The one
exception known to exist consists of some examples of an extensive series of
dessert plates from the eighteenth century reputedly destined for the Russian
court. Most of the plates were superbly decorated with the repertoire of
subjects customary at KPM. A few of these plates had lightly colored views of Italy
without explanatory inscriptions, and they were characterized mostly by a
rather awkward handling of the emerging perspective painting.

The first real view painter
at the KPM appears to be Johann Hubert Anton Forst (1755-1823). In 1771 he came
to the factory as an apprentice and became a student of painting director Böhme.
By 1781 Forst was already designated landscape and view painter, and only six
years later, in 1795, after Böhme’s departure, he became head of the corps of
landscape, animal, and bird painters, a position that he retained until his
retirement on January 1, 1815.6 Although we do not know of any porcelain
works definitely by him, his style is sufficiently recognizable through signed
view etchings. Böhme’s sixteen colored views of Berlin and Charlottenburg were
engraved by Friedrich A. Schmidt (demonstrably 1814-48) in Dresden and
published by Baptist Weiss in Berlin.7 In spite of the poor quality of these
drawings, they are reproduced very sketchily and their designation, “According
to Nature” is an exaggeration. The deficiencies in perspective are
strikingly obvious especially in complicated architectural views such as Das Belvedere im Königl, Garten zu Charlottenburg bei Berlin (The Belvedere at
Charlottenburg in the Royal Garden near Berlin). The factory was better served
by the Recueil des Prospects les plus
beaux et les plus interessants de Berlin, by Johann George Rosenberg
(1739-1808), which had been published in 1786 in a large folio by Marino and
which belonged to the source material used at KPM.

A reliable indicator of
outstanding innovations in KPM production is found in exhibition catalogues of
the Royal Prussian Academy of Arts after 1786, the year the academy was
founded. In the 1804 exhibition catalogue, there is clear evidence8 for the
first time of views on KPM footed salvers, cups, and plates. In the catalogue,
in most cases, specific available views clearly contrast with general landscape
painting. There was strong interest in German views, which were described as
“patriotic.” Beside unlabeled scenes according to patterns made by
Forst (probably views of Berlin), there are a few specific views: Eckersdorf
near Bayreuth “according to an inked drawing of Professor Rösel”
(Number 469 in the academy catalogue); of Freienwalde according to an
illuminated engraving by Nagel (Number 471); of the Ilsenfalls near Wernigerode
“drawn by Bahrt according to Nature and executed on porcelain”
(Number 473); and a “Roman view in dark sepia color, after Johann Dietrich
and Wille” (Number 474).

Among KPM view painters
represented at the academy, one of the most talented was Wilhelm Barth
(1779-1852),9 who had come to the factory in 1796 at the age of eighteen.
That he was allowed to make his own studies of nature in the Harz mountains
speaks for the endorsement of his early talent. Unfortunately like many other
highly talented view painters, he left the factory and after 1803 worked as a
respected, independent view painter. King Friedrich Wilhelm III, a passionate
collector of view paintings, appointed him Court Painter in 1825, and a year
later he became a professor at the academy.

An early copy of a Lütke
painting made by Barth had been exhibited at the academy in 1800.10 It
confirms that Barth had followed the academy’s 1790 statutes and studied
drawing there. He was a student of Peter Ludwig Lütke (1759-1831)11, who
after 1789 directed landscape painting at the academy. This association also
explains the frequent use of Lütke’s view paintings beside etchings of Barth as
source material at KPM. An oil painting dated 1795, bearing Lütke’s monogram in
ligature, depicts Ockerthal bei Goslar im
Harz (Ockertal near Goslar in the Harz Mountains) and is still in the KPM
Archive.12 The plate based on it with its decoration and relief gilding still
reflects KPM’s strong dependence on characteristics employed by the Imperial
Porcelain Factory Vienna dating to the turn of the century. Professor Samuel Rösel
(1768-1843),13 who was also represented among KPM entries at the academy exhibition,
was another member of the Landscape Section of the academy.

A larger group from KPM view
painting department, was represented in 1804 and 1806 at the academy
exhibitions. Among them was the eldest son of the factory’s painting
supervisor, Johann Eusebius Anton Forst (1783-1866)14, who came to the
factory in 1797 as a fourteen-year-old apprentice. He acquired a good
reputation as a view painter, and at the 1828 academy exhibition he showed three
oil pictures with views of palaces.15 Against the customary practices of the
factory, he was the only KPM view painter who later sometimes signed16 his
porcelain views on the picture border, so that his later style is rather well
documented. Forst was known by several variations on his name: “Forst the
Younger” or “Forst Son” and, after his youngest brother Heinrich
Wilhelm Julius Forst joined KPM, “Forst 1,” “Forst Senior,”
or “Forst the First,” all of which has led to considerable confusion
in the literature.17 Of the remaining view painters—Christian Zeep (1751-1808), Johann Friedrich Schall
(active 1785-1809 at KPM), Johann Gottlieb Friedrich Krause (active 1786-1805
at KPM), and Carl Wilhelm Seeger (1782-1820) —there are no surviving works, and their output is
known only from the academy catalogues.

At the academy exhibition in
1810, KPM first introduced the works of a highly talented and versatile
newcomer to the factory who was a master in the genre of fantasy landscapes,
figures, and views:18 Frédéric Frégevize (1770-1849). Originally from Geneva
and a skilled miniature painter, Frégevize started at the factory on July 1,
1809,19 and in 1820 was made a professor and regular member of the academy.
His first topographical view at the academy was entitled Eine Gegend am Genfer See (A Region by Lake Geneva).20 Later as a
freelance oil painter, Frégevize created views mainly of his native Switzerland
as well as Silesia and the Riesengebirge. His porcelains are occasionally
signed.21

The many surviving examples
of KPM porcelains from this era speak eloquently of the factory’s new
direction. They are captivating works with their surfaces fully covered with a
variety of decorative motifs executed on a small scale in new color
combinations. This work often exhibited remarkable trompe l’oeil stone and
mosaic work and relief gilding, all strongly indebted to contemporaneous
Viennese influence.

For view paintings, the term Gemälde (picture) was established at the
academy exhibitions. Doubtless a wishful notion, this concept took into account
the tableaux offered after 1802 by
KPM, the round or square porcelain platters executed as a foil for these copies
of easel painting. As earlier, view painting was essentially a case of
miniature painting in the traditional sense, based on black-and-white or
colored prints, watercolors, or gouaches, but rarely transcribed from oil
paintings. Monochrome views in manganese brown, grisaille, or sepia
predominate. Multicolored views were more or less indebted to watercolors,
which—in the context of
present-day taste—fit harmoniously
into the rich decorative schemes of that time. However, with their classical
coolness they correspond more to an anonymous decorative image than to a
specific architectural view or landscape “portrait.” These works were
still quite distant from topographical fidelity with respect to architectural
details or coloring.

A competent and critical
witness of the times was Georg Friedrich Christoph Frick (ca. 1775-1848),22
who had begun his training in 1797 with the “Arcane and Color
Laboratory” and in 1832 as Rosenstiel’s successor became the sole director
of the factory. Frick remains one of the most outstanding, far-sighted, and
passionately engaged directors in the history of KPM and, at that time, the
factory’s most important technological innovator of great international
prominence.

Of the picture and view
painting of KPM at that time, Frick said, “it is not powerful at all and has
the appearance of illuminated copper engravings, because everything was painted
with fine layers of thin glaze.” For him, the painted views looked like
“incomplete sketches, painted with light, pale watercolors …. Since one used
the usual light blue for the skies above the landscapes but very thinly
applied, after the burning in of the color, these were always dull and matte.23

Frick divided the technical
development of colors at the factory into phases, the first beginning in 1763
and ending in 1799 when a new arcanist, mining assessor Dr. Richter, took over
the preparation of colors and gold, broadening the factory’s limited color
repertoire. At the time of his entry in 1799, there were only three greens
available, prepared from copper oxide: bright-green, yellow-green, and
blue-green. The last two colors were obtained by mixing yellow or blue enamels.
A special problem was presented by a brown-black shading (the so-called Goldferne), “a quick drying purple
deposit of Cassius without any additives.” This served as a darkening
undercoat, before color was applied: “If one wanted to attain a paler
color, this was done through a thinner application of the glazes, but it then
had no luster after the firing. In order to have a stronger color one had to
apply the enamels in thicker layers, but they splintered off in the
firing.”24

During the second phase from
1799 onwards, which was already influenced by Frick, “the uranium colors,
a great number of constantly varied purples, and the various light and dark
blue colors … were discovered.”25 Nevertheless, there was considerable
resistance to these color developments primarily from the director of the
factory commission. Count von Reden, who, despite public preferences, demanded
that all porcelain “be decorated with gentle, not garish colors, pale
Nanking-colored [a light, sand-colored tone], pale light blue, etc. Landscapes
should be painted only from manganese brown or sepia and portraits executed
from only one color applied to the porcelain.”26 Frick denied the
commission any input into technical issues and reproached the factory director,
Friedrich Philipp Rosenstiel for incompetence and for not having the strength
or the insight to remedy these impediments to progress. In 1809 Frick had
already developed his own “sky-blue” color, but the commission would
not allow him to use it at first.27 As early as 1810, Rosenstiel had ordered
his craftsmen to work in transfer decorations with areas of painting to help
lower the high production costs. Although view painting was bound to a costly
technology, its use was not restricted to luxury wares. Views were also applied
to pipe-bowls, cups, and plates.

Printed decoration, or
transfer printing, flourished in English factories where it was first applied
in 1753 on earthenware. KPM first used it in 1791, under the direction of a Mr.
Lowe28 who described himself as the inventor of porcelain printing. KPM
officials had him print a portrait of Frederick the Great on a cup.

The real inspiration for KPM,
however, was the outstanding printing of faience and earthenware at the Wenzel
Lüdicke factory in Rheinsberg north of Berlin, which was under English
influence. The KPM factory commission sent a laboratory worker, Roesch,29
there in 1794, in order to carry out experiments with printing on porcelain.
According to Kolbe,30 however, only after 1810 did they begin to use this “less
expensive way of decoration” at KPM.

To begin the printing
process, the drawing was engraved on a copper or steel plate. Afterwards this
was painted with fire-proof ink from ceramic colors and smelting materials,
then transferred in reverse onto specially prepared paper which was imprinted
on glazed porcelain, and fired in a muffle-kiln,31 The paper was then burned
off, leaving the color decoration.

KPM employed this transfer
process for views of Berlin, Potsdam, Breslau, Silesia, Rügen, Vienna,
Laxenburg, Meissen, Leipzig, Kassel, Doberban, and of the Wartburg, among other
subjects. The Silesian and Berlin views comprised the greatest source of
models. Most of the time the outlines of these images were printed, but also
washed grisailles and a few views in “natural colors” were made.32
According to Kolbe, around the mid-1820s, this transfer process was set aside,
because it no longer appealed to the taste of the public and because of the
harshness of the “contours and colors.” This phase of transfer technology
at KPM should not be overvalued. The technique was of relative insignificance,
especially in the area of high-quality view painting. Printed views on KPM porcelain
were seen for the last time at the National Trade Exposition (Exhibition of
Patriotic Products) in 1827 in Berlin: “Thirteen pairs of porcelain cups
with views of public buildings and streets in Berlin. Colored-in copper
engraving under the glaze.”33

The historical situation of
KPM at that time cannot be ignored. During the French Occupation (1806-8), the
factory dropped the “Royal” from its name. Placed under French
administration, the factory had to fulfill high indemnities and was strongly
impaired in its productivity.34 It was an extraordinarily difficult time,
lasting until the end of the Wars of Liberation in 1815.

One positive aspect of the
French Occupation was the intensification of relations between the Berlin factory
and the Imperial Porcelain Factory at Sèvres near Paris, from which both
enterprises profited. Alexandre Brongniart, Director of Sèvres for nearly half
a century (1800-1847), was not only a remarkable natural scientist and a man of
almost encyclopedic knowledge, but also the most outstanding individual in the
world of European porcelain at the time. He studied the competition in detail
and learned to appreciate the arcanist Frick. In 1812 Frick accompanied
Brongniart on his great journey to the porcelain factories in Saxony, Bohemia,
Austria, Bavaria, and Württemberg, an undertaking that Brongniart analyzed in
his seminal Traité des Arts céramiques ou
des Poteries considerées dans leur histoire, leur pratique et leur théorie (Characteristics
of the Ceramic Arts or of Pottery Considered in their History, their Practice,
and their Theory; [Paris. 1844]).35

Frick’s continued intensive
research in his color laboratory is apparent from the fact that by 1814, a
third phase of porcelain painting at KPM began. Fundamental to the further development
of high-quality picture and view painting, were his successful experiments with
greens formulated from chromium-oxidul which must not be confused with the
chromium oxide green underglaze painting that was applied from 1817 in Meissen
and from 1824 at KPM. The colors from chromium oxidul made possible a basic
change in the technical process of painting views. As complicated and
problematic priming of Goldferne
under the colors became unnecessary “because the various green colors from
chromium oxidul can be processed like ink into weaker or stronger tones, and
the darker greens could be applied for shading the same greens. The treatment
of these colors was similar to that of oil painting.36 These “green
colors from chromium oxidul first introduced in Germany (with the exception of
the Imperial Porcelain Factory in Vienna, where it had been in use for
sometime) at the Royal Porcelain Factory allow not only a wealth of beautiful
green nuances, but also can be weakly or strongly applied or mixed with other
colors, in a large number of gradations. It helped to raise porcelain painting
to a level higher; but, accustomed to paint in the old manner, very few
painters wanted to adapt themselves to a process that was easier in its
exercise than the earlier one and at the same time presented the opportunity to
present paintings that reasonably stood the comparison with oil painting.”37

Frick could only put his
innovations into effect by withholding Goldferne
primer from the painters after 1816 forcing them to use the new chromium oxidul
colors. “Now it became possible to copy oil paintings faithfully onto
porcelain.”38 Even if this optimistic announcement was true only from
the 1830s onward, a clear improvement and greater color balance with a
correspondingly richer palette can be established for the years after the Wars
of Liberation.

For KPM, the French influence
meant primarily a stylistic change, a shift away from the late classical
tendencies of Vienna, to that of the French Empire, the style à l’antique, as it was called at the time. This rigid,
metallic, highly polished representational style, continued to have an effect
on the lavish, densely saturated colors applied in unconventional
juxtapositions and artistically decorated gildings, and above all on the luxury
porcelain produced in Berlin until the early 1830s.

View painting, which was now
considered of prime importance, became the central motif on plates and platters
with borders functioning as luxuriously gilded frames. Landscapes were now
executed in “natural” colors, frequently on various types of krater
vases, here also rimmed in gold like pictures against a gold-etched background
which intensified the brilliant colors of the views.

The period after the Wars of
Liberation was full of changes for the factory. After the Peace of 1815, there
was great demand especially for “expensive and richly gilded products,”
and KPM was hard put to meet this demand despite considerable efforts. In 1816
and 1817, KPM had its best years financially—mostly from large luxury commissions. Soon afterward,
however, as at the Imperial Factory in Vienna, sales fell off in the face of a
flood of cheap competition from Thuringia and Bohemia.39

The enormous topographical
range in KPM view painting, which suggests that many additions were made to the
store of source material, is especially apparent in various large table
services made between 1815 and 1825. This series of table services began simply
with plates and round bowls that had traditional, multicolored rim decorations
with Berlin subjects seldom encountered at the time—after works by Friedrich Calau (1790-1830), Louis
Serrurier (active 1790/1800), and Franz Ludwig Catel (1778-1856) —as well as views of Potsdam, the
Pfaueninsel (Peacock Island), Pichelsdorf, Freienwalde, Mühlheim, and Keinigsberg.
Two of these plates are marked with “Lefaure
1816.”40 These are components from different services produced for the
Russian court, comprising over eighty plates with view paintings.41 The plates
can be dated to about 1820/1825. They show richly etched gold borders a round
views of the Pfalz near Kaub on the Rhine; the Rhine Falls near Schaffhausen;
Magdeburg and Heidelberg; Silesian castles and localities; German cathedrals
and churches as well as English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Swiss
cathedrals.

Views on different Feldherrenservicen [Field Marshall services]
that were produced as honorary gifts from the Prussian King, included scenes of
isolated places and battlefields from the Wars of Liberation which were used on
the large service pieces such as tureens and ice containers.42 One of the
most significant dinner services made by KPM was for the Duke of Wellington
(1769-1852). During this period (1815-1819) the factory was in direct competition
with the factories at Sèvres, Vienna, and Meissen43 to produce similar gifts
for the savior of Europe who had defeated Napoleon. The service included
sixty-four dessert plates with gold borders beautifully engraved. In the center
of each plate is a colored view of a place that played a role in the life of
the Duke: from Eton College in England to sites in the Netherlands, India,
Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and France.

In 1819, Elector Friedrich
Wilhelm of Hesse ordered a combined dinner and dessert service marked with the
“Iron Helmet” (a Hessian Order of Bravery that he created in 1814).
Comprising almost two-thousand pieces, the service was delivered by KPM in
1820. The coffee cups serve as a virtual catalogue of KPM’s then-current
decorative repertoire: mythological figures, flowers, antiques, mosaics,
hunting scenes after Ridinger, copies of paintings, and above all views.
Paintings of Prussia—predominantly
from the Potsdam-Berlin area—were
set against those of the Electorate of Hessen.44

Another royal order was the
magnificent table service made in 1825 for the wedding of Friedrich William III’s
daughter Princess Luisa to Prince Friedrich of the Netherlands.45 The service
was decorated with lively flower painting and rich gilding: the tureens, refraichissoirs (wine coolers), and
dessert plates were skillfully painted with views of Berlin, Potsdam, and the
Prussian lands from Breslau to Münster. These three services mark a high point
in KPM production. Thereafter the factory experienced a financial decline as
the size and the number of such prestigious commissions diminished.

In the 1820s, the demand for
vases increased, often in garnitures of two, three, and five pieces. Steadily
enriched by new forms, there was also an increase in the repertoire, and orders
were plentiful. A considerable percentage of the factory’s production of views
was applied to gift articles such as cups and porcelain eggs which the Royal
House used to order from the factory shortly before Easter. The Easter eggs
were painted by hand, while the cups were decorated very often with transfer
prints and the quality of the views on the cups varied according to price.

As a special type of view
painting, the panorama played an interesting role at KPM. It appeared on bowls,
coupes, platters, vases, and cups. Despite a longstanding tradition of this
genre in porcelain, this existed as a current reference to the mass
entertainment form of the time, the “perspectival-optical images”
mostly in the form of round-pictures or panoramas 46 which, as Theodore
Fontane (1819-1898) later writes, showed “what was most beautiful and most
interesting from all parts of the world to the marveling eye of the beholder.47
Situated in enormous halls, often lit with dramatic lighting and accompanied by
music, these panoramas satisfied the entertainment needs of the age. These continuous
paintings depicted great natural sites, battle scenes and circumstances of
national calamities. In Berlin, Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841) and Carl
Wilhelm Gropius (1793-1870) created these enormous optical pleasures for a wide
range of clients including the Royal House. In 1826, Friedrich Wilhelm III gave
his daughter, Princess Friedrich (Luise) of the Netherlands,48 three KPM Rotating Footed Salvers with cola red
panoramas of the Zeughaus (Arsenal) in Berlin, the Pfaueninsel, and the
Lustgarten (Pleasure Garden) at Potsdam. Two of these panoramas were viewed
from the perspective of a roof of an imaginary high building.

An additional three-piece set
49 from the former possession of the Russian tsars (Hermitage, St. Petersburg)
shows a panorama of Glienicke. Because one piece, a Pfaueninsel panorama, is signed
by Johann Eusevius Forst, he may have painted the entire series, of which other
examples are known.50 These panorama pictures are oriented towards
“cycloramas” or “anamorphotic plans of orientation.51 They
were offered for sale at public panorama exhibitions as reduced outline
etchings or as informational material. The precious porcelain “miniature
panoramas” for the most discriminating taste underscore this genre’s move
into an elite position.

An alternative to this type
of view is offered by a large rotating coupe from the centerpiece delivered in
1823 for the wedding of the Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia (later Emperor Nicholas
1) to Friedrich William III’s eldest daughter Charlotte (later Empress
Alexandra Feodorovna). Four “wide-screen pictures” on the border of
the inside of the salver depict
scenes documenting the various battles leading to Napoleon’s defeat, from
Leipzig to Moscow to Waterloo (Belle Alliance). These paintings are situated in
segmental reserves between portraits of the most famous Field Marshalls of the
Allied Powers during the years that Napoleon upset the balance of power in
Europe. The goddess of victory is painted in a repeat pattern on the inner ring
of the basin.

A highly original coupe created
around 1825/26 and heavily emblematic, has a central cameo portrait of Crown
Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, surrounded by a wide border painted with six species
of trees on which guardian spirits are placed. Through openings in the greenery
well-known buildings of the city have been depicted, all of which have a
special connection to the Royal House: the Brandenburg Gate as official
Triumphal Entry to the city, Königliche Schloss (Royal Palace), Königliche
Museum (Royal Museum), Königliche Schauspielhaus (Royal Theater), Königliche
Wache mit dem Zeughaus (Royal Guardhouse with the Arsenal), and den deutschen und den franzosischen Dom
(the German and the French cathedrals). Because of their symbolic importance,
these views appear to rest on tablets flanked by eagles. These plaques bear
carved inscriptions to the pictures.

A similar formula was used
for a large, round porcelain tabletop made in 1830. The format of a single
panorama was replaced by a series of twelve views of Berlin and Potsdam palaces
and public buildings, arranged in a loose narrative depicting the Royal Road.
These scenes surround a central medallion painted with a lavish bouquet signed
by KPM flower painter Ernst Sager (1788-after 1830). Because of the uniform scale
and shared horizon in each view, the frieze creates an impression of a panorama,
divided by decorative borders.

All cylindrical vessels,
particularly vases, are well-suited for panoramic views. The panoramas of
Babelsberg near Potsdam, Pfïngstberg, Pfaueninsel, and the Berlin Cathedral can
be found in various versions especially on the large krater vases.52

Characteristic for many views
from this period is a rather muted palette of brown, green, and soft blue tones.
Additional color swabs form only a few, very schematic, decorative figures. The
architecture has the effect of a stage setting and frequently lacks topographical
precision. Despite the wealth of patterns available in a wide range of
techniques the best paintings followed an astonishingly similar standard. In
relationship to the Viennese and Sèvres views made at the same time, the
impression of KPM work altogether is rather pedantic, revealing a simpler
reproduction full of faithfulness to the pattern, and somewhat anemic, without
individual artistic brilliance. The severe, somewhat lifeless impression
underscores the rich, matte gilding and creates an aloof coolness, sounding a
specifically Prussian note, that distinguishes this painting from that of other
factories.

Whose hands produced these
views remains to a large extent a mystery. The many signed views on porcelain
from the 1820s suggest that a considerable number may have been executed by
Johann Eusebius Anton Forst. They distinguish themselves by their solid,
uniform quality, attractive in its meticulous, at times, minutely detailed
reproduction and the skilled execution even of complicated architectonic
perspectives.

After nearly a quarter of a
century KPM was less often represented at the academy exhibitions.
Nevertheless, in 1822, “two large bowls” were shown,53 one of
which, bordered by portraits of the regents of the House of Hohenzollern,
showed a view of the Königliche Schloss (Royal Palace) from the perspective of
the Lange Brücke (Long Bridge), painted by Johann Andreas Diehl (1787-1857). A
companion piece had a view of Moscow, bordered by the portraits of the regents
of the House of Romanov. This was the work of Carl Emanuel Koch (1787 -1858).
Both bowls were part of a huge table service delivered in 1823 for the wedding
of Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia (Hermitage, St. Petersburg) to Princess
Charlotte.

Toward the end of the Wars of
Liberation, a new generation of promising view painters became apprentices at
KPM. When the old painting director, Johann Hubert Anton Forst, retired on
January 1, 1815, however, the younger painters were bypassed and KPM’s
incumbent flower painter (since 1802), Gottfried Wilhelm Völker (1775-1849)
assumed the post. Known primarily as an oil painter, Völker was made a member
of the Berlin Artists’ Association after 1814, and after 1817, he was a
professor at the academy. He was considered at the time to be the leading
artist at KPM. He also provided proof of his pedagogic talents at court by
giving instruction in drawing and painting flowers to Princess Charlotte in
1816 and to her stepmother, Countess von Liegnitz, in 1832.

For his part, Völker
suggested 54 consulting the landscape painter Johann Andreas Diehl (who is
known to have been at the factory since 1802) for views, because Völker himself
wanted “to act … in the area of higher art. Because for a long time now
I have used my diligence and study for higher ideas in all branches of art,
because in the area of landscape painting I am also the owner of beautiful oil
paintings, moreover I busy myself in this area and have friends who are
possessors of landscape and historical paintings and who would like to give me
such paintings; … therefore I would be able to accomplish a great deal in
this field; … with respect to perspective painting, which is absolutely
necessary, my plan would be … to hold a special training for apprentices …
where they would receive the most complete instruction not only under my
direction but also under that of Professor Cubeil [the painter and etcher Carl
Ludwig Kuhbeil, ca. 1770-1823] or Mr. Hampe [the landscape painter Karl
Friedrich Hampe, 1771-1848).”55 For figure painting, Völker suggested
KPM painting director, Court Counselor Gustav Taubert (1754/55-1839). All of these
men were members of the Academy of Arts. In later literature, Völker’s specialty
as a painter of flowers led to the conclusion that Schirmer, the landscape
painter, had to serve an apprenticeship as a flower painter at KPM.

Among Völker’s first students
was Eduard Gaertner (1801-1877),56 who later became Berlin’s most important
view painter on canvas. Like most of the students, Gaertner was thirteen when
he began the six-year apprenticeship at KPM in 1814. He remained at the factory
only seven years, however, leaving to enter the workshop of the painter of
stage sets and owner of the Berlin Diorama, Carl Wilhelm Gropius. Gaertner
later disparaged his KPM apprenticeship as a hindrance to his education. He
wrote that he drew “rings, bands, and edges,” but he also produced a
watercolor of the drawing studio of the factory entitled Nach der Natur gezeichnet von E. Gaertner. Das 6te perspectivische
Studium den 21sten Februar 1816 (Drawing According to Nature by E.
Gaertner. The sixth perspectival study on February 21, 1816), as well as two
watercolors from 1818 which show the courtyard of the factory from various
standpoints.57 They are captivating in their precise, correct perspectives.

With the exception of
etchings entitled Erinnerung an Berlin
(Reminder of Berlin),58 Gaertner’s later, indirect influence on the view
painting of KPM turns out to be surprisingly moderate. In the 1830s there are
only two views associated with Gaertner: Fest
der Weissen Rose (Festival of the White Rose) and mit dem Neuen Palais bzw den Communs (The New Palace from the
Communs at Potsdam; 1829). 59 Also after Gaertner are three views, the
Schlüter-Court at the Berlin Palace (1830), the Eosander Court (1831),60 and Neue Wache mit dem Scharnhorstdenkmal (New
Guardhouse with the Scharnhorst Memorial; 1833)61 all on KPM porcelains.
These were views transferred to porcelain by means of engravings and
watercolors and then rendered in enamels.

Great hopes for the next
generation were also inspired by the work of view painter Johann Heinrich
Wilhelm Hintze (1800-shortly before 1862), who concluded his apprenticeship with
Völker at about the same time as Gaertner. Because of his accomplishments,
Hintze, together with another newcomer, August Wilhelm Ferdinand Schirmer
(1802-1866), was sent for “five to six weeks on a journey to Dresden,
Bautzen, Görlitz in the Silesian Riesengebirge, and the county of Glatz, in order
to exercise themselves in their fields of art.” ln the summer of 1821,
Hintze was supposed to undertake an eight-week study trip to the island of
Rügen via Mecklenburg, “in order to take advantage everywhere of the
opportunity, to practice and perfect his art in nature,” as Völker formulated
it in his letter of recommendation to Rosenstiel. Völker’s efforts to make it possible
for the coming generation to have an opportunity to study on the spot,62 are
also evident in the journey to Pomerania made by Gaertner in his last year at
the factory, which was 1821, as well as by an additional leave of absence,
allocated to the landscape painter Schirmer for a journey to the Harz
mountains, Kassel, and Thuringia.

Hintze is something of an
exception among this later group of artists at KPM who comprised the factory’s
first generation of landscape painters. Unlike most others, he did not leave
the factory immediately after his apprenticeship, but rather remained in the
department of painters until 1835, but after 1836, his name is no longer on the
personnel list.63 Obviously, a special status had been granted to him during
this time, since he possessed privileges denied to other painters at the
factory. He was regularly allowed to send his oil paintings and watercolors to
the exhibitions of the academy, where he was a member. Friedrich Wilhelm III
and Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1795-1861; r. 1840-58) were among his patrons, as was
the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, who invited the young painter to travel as a
companion of the court. Further study journeys took him to the Rhine, Bavaria,
and the Alps. In 1829 he was a member of the “Association of Painters,
Sculptors, Architects, and Comrades of Art in Berlin.”64 Today, however,
we know only of a signed KPM porcelain platter, entitled Die Gegend bei Pichelsberg von Schildhorn (The Region near Pichelsberg
Seen from Schildhorn), marked “H. Hintze fec. 1833,” copied from his
own oil painting from the previous year. In the KPM archives there is a
panorama, Die Aussicht vom Thurme des
Doms über den Lustgarten in Berlin (The View from the Tower of the
Cathedral over the Pleasure Garden in Berlin), which was exhibited at the
academy in 1834. From 1836 to 1838 it repeatedly served as a model for
paintings on large krater vases “Riesenische Sorte.”65 Hintze may
have delivered oil paintings to be used as patterns for works on porcelain and
thereby played a role similar to Carl Daniel Freydanck who came later. Of this
generation of painters,66 it was primarily Schirmer,67 who influenced
porcelain painting at KPM.

Without exaggeration these
artists formed the core of the first great generation of Berlin view and landscape
painters in the nineteenth century and almost all acquired their training at
KPM. With its modest beginnings in view painting, the factory paved the way for
a new branch within the field of Berlin oil painting. It is not known why
painters, except for Hintze, preferred to leave KPM after their apprenticeship,
working as free and independent artists. Perhaps it was the strong decline in
profits, which led in 1821 to an official examination of KPM and to the
appointment of Frick as director of the department of white porcelain together
with the sixty-seven-year-old Rosentstiel. This may have led to a general
insecurity with the management of the factory. At any rate, for the factory,
the departures of these talented artists was a heavy blow. In 1832, Frick68
reported that since 1822 KPM had hired no new apprentices for the painting
corps.

A new low-cost method of
duplicating views on porcelain was introduced in the late 1820s. In 1828, a
year after Paul de Bourgoing (1791-1864) in Paris had received a patent for the
lithophane, a translucent porcelain image, Frick also conducted experiments toward
producing translucent image plates. Because the factory’s porcelain body was
not sufficiently translucent at that time, Frick had to formulate a new
porcelain body with a high soapstone content which when gloss-fired at a low
temperature, guaranteed an excellent translucency.69

These lithophanes are thin
unglazed porcelain plaques into which images are pressed by means of a relief
form before the firing. The resulting porcelain impression has the quality of a
gray and white translucency depending on the intensity of the backlighting. At
the same time the Berlin lithophanes, which to be sure were somewhat more
expensive than the contemporaneous Meissen lightshade plates,70 had an
outstanding reputation because of their fine quality, and they sold well over a
long period, guaranteeing a considerable profit with a small expenditure on the
part of the factory.

There was a large repertoire
of Berlin lithophanes; according to the price list, models for 580 scenes were
produced between 1828 and 1865, including reproductions of portraits,
historical scenes, sentimental subjects, and vedute of Berlin and Potsdam. The book, Berlin und seine Umgebung im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin and its
Environs in the Nineteenth Century), published in 1833 by Samuel Heinrich
Spiker, served as a source for many of the models.

Lithophanes gained
international popularity as window decorations and lampshades. Characteristic
to all of them is a certain softness in the reproduction, a more picturesque effect,
which is determined by the material and the degree of lumination. KPM later
began to produce colored lithophanes as well. At the World Exhibition in the
Crystal Palace in London, 1851, KPM was the first factory to show a selection
of this work.

4.Schaub did not go to Silesia, but rather to Burg rave Dohna in Schlobitten. Prussia. At the Academy Exhibition of 1788 “Herr Schaub aus Berlin zu Schlodien in Preussen” (Mr. Schaub from Berlin at Schlodien in Prussia) displayed “Eine dortige Gegend nach der Natur gemahlt” (a region there painted according to nature) under No. 202. (Author’s note: Schlodien Castle was part of the Dohna estate.) ↖

5.There are two examples of KPM solitaires from around 1790 known: a serving platter with a grisaille painting showing Schloss Moritzburg (see Peters 1982, pp. 57- 58. figs. 1, 2) and a view of Naples Harbor (Collection of Berlin-Porcelain at the Belvedere. Schloss Charlottenburg. Berlin). Since all the remaining parts are painted with generic river and harbor views, the topographical intention of the trays remains in doubt. ↖

12.In an undated painting register of the KPM Archives (KPM-Königliche Porzellan-Manufaktur, Berlin, Wegely Street), five additional, now-lost paintings by Lütke with Italian views from the years 1794-95 are listed. ↖

16.The following works are known for certain to have been made by Forst 1: A “Munich” vase without handles with a panorama of “the area from the Royal Palace at Berlin up to the Linden” (see Kataloge der Berliner Akademie-Ausstellungen, vol. 2 [1830]. no. 1203); a signed krater vase with eagle handles and with a view of Berlin from the northeast; an identical krater with the same view (Collection of the Order of St. John. Berlin); a Reden-vase with a view onto the Linden as seen from the Royal Palace in Berlin (Hunting Palace Grunewald, SSG); a coupe with a panorama of the Pfaueninsel; a claw-footed cup with panorama of Charlottenburg and Spandau (Collection Weick. Berlin). According to the markings. All objects were created in the time period, 1823-32. (Author’s note: this brief survey is by no means complete.) ↖

17.The distinctions between “Forst I” and “Forst II” in Scheffler (1963, pp. 25-28) are based on a misinterpretation of the sparse information in the Academy catalogues. Johann Hubert Anton Forst (1755-1823, whom Scheffler calls “Forst I”) had two daughters and five sons, of whom three entered the KPM. In the “Rechnungs-Buch sämtlicher Mitglieder der Versorgungs: Anstalt bey der Königlichen Porzellan Manufa[ktur]” (Account Book of all Members of the Supply Institution at the KPM: n.d.), the eldest son born on August 14, 1783, Johann Eusebius Anton Forst, is listed in the alphabetical index as “Forst sen.” He was accepted as an apprentice on April 1, 1797 (in another place, 1798) and “released,” becoming a “Member of the Supply Institution” on April 17, 1804. On “April 1, 1832, he became an invalid.” ↖

In the “Acta. die Maler 1826-1831. IX. 9. vol. IV” a circular (Nov. 16, 1829) from Rosenstiel was directed at the corps of painters that should be signed by all the painters. “By oath it would oblige them to take up no private work [on the side].” The year and day “on which such an oath was given” should be entered as well. The Forst cited above signed “Johann Forst, entered into apprenticeship on April 1, 1799 and sworn 1805.” In the list of specifications of the income of each painter requested by the Ministry of the Interior shortly after for each month of the year 1829/30, there appears in the overview a “Forst sen.” “age: 45 years.” His year of entrance into the KPM is given as 1798. This “Forst sen.” is also named at another place in the fi le “Forst 1” and “Forst 1ste.”

For mention of the second son of J. H. A. Forst (Heinrich Wilhelm Julius Forst, born December 23, 1789), see “Rechnungsbuch … der Versorgungs,” p. 31. In the alphabetical name index he is entered as “Forst jun.” He was accepted into apprenticeship on Dec. 1, 1804, and released on Sept. 28, 1810. This Forst, however, was noted to have “left in October, 1811.” He seems to be identical with the bank secretary mentioned by Scheffler. His place at the KPM was taken by the youngest of the Forst sons. Eduard Wilhelm Forst born on March 18, 1801. According to the “Rechnungsbuch … der Versorgungs” mentioned above (p. 43), he was a member of the Supply Institution after April 1, 1823. In the Rosenstiel circular, he signs with “Forst II”: “I arrived as an apprentice on June 24, 1816…” In the specification list demanded by the Ministry, this “Forst jun.” is twenty-eight years old in 1829, and his entrance is given as 1817. From 1823 on he is active in the landscape-painting department. On Dec. 31, 1849 he is declared an invalid.

23.Frick 1845-1848, p. 101. (This is actually a handwritten copy made by a co-worker in the factory: its 1018 pages bear occasional corrections by Frick in his own handwriting. As this copy ends with the year 1845 and Frick died in 1848, it can be dated to within this period.) ↖

40.The plates from this series are in the Märkische Museum (Berlin): see Widerra [1962], nos. 131-139. For the views. Die eiserneBrücke in Berlin (The iron bridge in Berlin) and Das PotsdamerThor zu Berlin (The Potsdam Gate in Berlin), see ibid., nos. 131, 132; they are signed “Lefaure 1816.” It is not clear whether “Lefaure” is the painter and lithographer Louis Faure who, in the Berlin Academy Exhibitions of 1822, 1824, and 1836, showed views of the Rhine and Elbe rivers, and of Southern France (Faure died in Paris in 1879). Or, “Lefaure” could refer to Elisa Faure, who in 1824 was represented at the Academy with a “Kopie nach Ruisdael, auf Porzellan gemalt” (copy after Rusidael, painted on porcelain). ↖

50.A salver with a Glienicke panorama was still at Schloss Glienicke in the 1930s; see Johannes Sievers. Bauten für den PrinzenKarl von Preuβen, Berlin 1942b, p. 124, fig. 122. For a further example with the panorama of the Royal Potsdam in Palace see Orangerie 1983, p. 169 with ill. ↖

62.“Acta. die Maler der Manufaktur betreffend (1816-1825). 1X. 9.” includes letters from painting director Völker to the director of the factory, Rosenstiel, concerning journeys for the young painters for study purposes: July 11, 1820 for Hintze and Schirmer; May 13, 1821 for Hintze; August 16, 1821 for Gaertner; August 1, 1823 for Schirmer. ↖

65.Kataloge der Berliner Akademie-Ausstellungen, vol. 2 (1834), no. 297. Johann Carl Friedrich Riese (1759-1834) started as apprentice at the KPM in 1770 and later was “Modellmeister (master model-maker) until his death in 1834. Riese’s appointment inaugurated a new era of figural work at KPM. He had as strong an influence on the creation of bisque sculptures as Schadow. For dinner services, portrait busts, medallions, and allegorical groups, Riese created new forms after Schadow’s designs. His work was presented at the Berlin Academy Exhibition between 1800 and 1822. ↖

66.It is also possible, but not certain, that the renowned architecture and landscape painter, Karl Eduard Biermann (1803-1892) began as a porcelain and decoration painter. Whether he too was educated at KPM can not be confirmed. ↖

67.Schirmer is known through his watercolors, a few of which are in the KPM Archives, Schloss Charlottenburg, and through his particularly inspiring views of Potsdam. ↖